5 ms·
So if the FBI didn't want to monitor everyone all the time, then you'd volunteer to be monitored?
by _emacsomancer_ 6y ago
So if the FBI didn't want to monitor everyone all the time, then you'd volunteer to be monitored?
- vorpalhex 6y agoNo? You have a logic flaw here, you've inverted the consequent, which does not imply an inverted antecedent.
- _emacsomancer_ 6y agoBecause you've set up the comparison in an illogical fashion it inevitably leads to nonsense. > Well the same reason you don't share your email with the FBI and agree to be monitored at all times. So if G=government requires me to do thing X, and X=I do thing X G→¬X G ----- ¬X and then: > I wear a mask, and I choose to wear a mask. I also wore a mask before it was "supported" by the CDC. If tomorrow it was legally required, I would stop wearing a mask. assuming that again G=government requires me to do thing X, and X=I do thing X, you're saying that G→¬X G ----- ¬X and also (because you have been wearing a mask): ¬G→X ¬G ----- X So then the "for the same reason" doesn't make sense. It invites the idea that the two cases are parallel, and the only logical way I see of forcing them to be parallel is if: ¬G→X ¬G ----- X is also true in the case of the FBI and emails. How is it "for the same reason" otherwise?
- vorpalhex 6y agohttps://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirming-the-Consequent https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Affirmi... You've also treated two unrelated statements as dependent clauses.
- _emacsomancer_ 6y agoI know enough logic not to need your links, thank you. And, no, my point was that you have tried to relate, in a hand-wavy fashion, two unrelated statements. So you can't say "it's for the same reason".